Facing disasters together: how keeping animals safe

Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2018, 37 (1), 223-230

Facing disasters together: how keeping animals safe benefits humans before, during and after natural disasters K. Thompson E-mail: [email protected]

Summary More than half of the world’s households are thought to contain at least one companion animal. Animals can affect how humans are impacted by natural disasters, how they respond to such events and how well they can recover from them. For this reason alone, there is a real need to keep animals safe before, during and after natural disasters, and to do so in ways that contribute to, rather than compromise, human safety. This paper outlines the negative implications of failing to account for animals in disaster plans and/or to accommodate them in shelters. It also outlines how including animals in disaster response can provide benefits for the physical and mental health and well-being of humans that extend well beyond the disaster event. These implications are discussed in broad terms for the guardians of small and large companion animals, livestock producers and emergency responders with examples drawn from a variety of natural and human-made hazards. Finally, this paper suggests that research on people who do not attempt to save, rescue or evacuate with animals could provide important insights into natural disaster behaviour and human–animal relations. Keywords Behaviour change – Companion animal – Hazard – Livestock – Natural disaster – Planning – Preparedness – Response – Safety – Welfare.

Introduction One of the most famous natural disasters in history is the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79. The collection of plaster casts and skeletons of those who died as a result are an ongoing source of morbid public fascination. It includes a cast of the twisted body of a collared dog, who appears to have been chained to a post when it perished in Pompeii. This dog is presented alone, in contrast to the skeleton of another dog found with a young boy in nearby Herculaneum. We may never know if the guardian of the dog at Pompeii survived because they did not go back to rescue the animal, or if the boy at Herculaneum perished because he did return. What these archaeological finds do tell us is that humans and animals have always faced natural disasters together. For those who own companion animals, make a living from animal-related activities or have a strong bond with an animal, the importance of keeping animals safe from natural disasters may be self-evident. However, this view is not

doi: 10.20506/rst.37.1.2753

shared by all householders, animal guardians or emergency responders. For those who do not own companion animals, do not make a living from animal-related activities, have never bonded with an animal, or who have multiple vulnerable humans in their household, animals may seem irrelevant and unrelated to keeping humans safe from natural disasters (1). Managing animals and their guardians during a disaster is important, but it takes work. A survey of 98 participants from 68 emergency response organisations in Australia revealed challenges in managing animals and interacting with their owners during and after a disaster event (2, p. 31). So why is it important to keep animals safe before, during and after (or between) natural disasters? Firstly, from an animal welfare perspective, animals have their own intrinsic value. They matter regardless of humans, and many people believe that humans have a moral imperative to protect animals from harm. Secondly, animals matter to humans. Human relationships with animals can impact natural disaster survivability before, during and after events (3). As discussed below, animals can affect how humans are

224

impacted by natural disasters, how they respond to such events and how well they can recover from them. For this reason alone, there is a pressing need to keep animals safe before, during and after natural disasters, and to do so in ways that contribute to, rather than compromise, human safety (4).

Planning and preparedness Currently, more than half of the world’s households are thought to contain at least one companion animal (5), notwithstanding cultural differences. In addition to householders being generally underprepared for natural disasters (6, 7), there are indications that around 80% of companion animal guardians are willing to risk their lives to rescue their animals (8). However, instead of seeing companion animal guardianship as a risk factor for human survival of natural disasters, the desire to keep animals safe from such disasters could be used to motivate improved planning and preparedness (9). Specifically, messaging to guardians could centre on how they could increase the survivability of their companion animals by engaging in behaviours that would incidentally improve their own chances of survival. This has been referred to as the ‘pets as protective factor’ principle. Going one step further, messaging can also remind guardians that the continued care for their animals beyond the disaster will depend on their own survival (9). This extension is analogous to the ‘who depends on you’ principle for motivating personal protective behaviours (10). In Australia, bushfire (wildfire) planning is discussed in terms of mental or written plans to ‘stay or go’ (7), which is shorthand for the following complex of responses: the household, in full or in part, stays and defends the property, either passively or actively, which may entail the household, in full or in part, evacuating, either early (e.g. when catastrophic bushfire conditions are forecast), or late (i.e. at the last minute). Well-planned early evacuations are thought to be the safest option (11), while the least advised response is to ‘wait and see’, as it can lead to last-minute evacuations resulting in fatalities (12). However, planned actions are not always possible, for reasons such as the unpredictability of bushfires and/or animal ownership (13). Moreover, people tend to overestimate their abilities and levels of planning, therefore the relationship between intentions and actions is far from straightforward (14).

Response In their response to an actual disaster event, most companion animal guardians try to evacuate with their animals (15) but they may also refuse or fail to evacuate because they do

Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 37 (1)

not wish to be separated from their animals (16). Several studies have identified animal ownership as a risk factor for successful evacuation. A survey of residents affected by floods in Yuba County, California, the United States of America (USA), identified companion animal ownership as ‘the most significant reason why households without children failed to evacuate’ (17), while another of residents ordered to evacuate due to a chemical spill in Weyauwega, Wisconsin, USA, found that 40.7% of participants evacuated without their companion animals, but then tried to return prematurely to rescue them because of concerns for their animals’ safety (18). Entering danger zones due to concern for animals has also been noted in relation to modern volcanic eruptions (19). The implications of this behaviour can be catastrophic – leading to injury or death of not only the guardians but also of the responders who were trying to help them. The lives of animals are also put at risk when planning is poor. In the case of commercial animal production, the number of animal lives at risk can be tremendous (20). Evacuation with animals is much less likely for livestock producers (21), but this does not mean that they will not risk their own lives to save their animals. As part of the human condition, even the most analytical and logical person can be emotional, social and relational. It should not be so surprising, therefore, that animal guardians risk their lives to save those of their animals (9). Many guardians report high levels of attachment to their companion animals, often considering them to be part of the family (22). As such, many guardians experience similar types and levels of attachment to their companion animals as those they may also experience towards the human members of their family – partners, children, parents and siblings. This is evidenced by a study of companion animal guardians who survived the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, all of whom referred to their animals as their ‘children’ (23). The desire to evacuate with companion animals is thus often no different from the desire to evacuate with one’s human family. Moreover, the stress and anxiety of being separated from a significant animal is no different to that experienced when separated from a significant human. Beyond ideas of ‘attachment’ or animals as extended human selves (9, 24), the concept of the ‘petowning self’ has been proposed to describe how individual companion animals can become central to the identity and sense of self for individual humans (25). Yet, an analysis of media reports on people risking their lives to save animals reveals how public perceptions of such risky behaviours are largely dependent upon the final outcome; being positive if the human survives and negative if they do not (1). Thus human life still reigns supreme (23, 26). Nonetheless, regardless of different views on whether animal lives should matter as much as human lives or not, in a disaster where rescue resources are typically stretched, the fact remains that animal lives do matter.

225


Responders may also be impacted by their desire to save their own animals and may be conflicted between their emergency service commitments and their responsibilities as animal guardians. A poignant example of this conflict is the story of a boarding kennel caught in the path of the 2015 Sampson Flat bushfire in South Australia. Of some 40 dogs and cats who perished, two belonged to the Fire Brigade Captain who was in attendance. In that instance, the Captain continued to help to save other animals (27). However, concern for one’s own animals can discourage essential service people from attending work on days of natural disaster, as has been the case for hospital staff (28). When people evacuate from disasters with their companion animals, most seem to find accommodation with friends and family (17, 18). Nonetheless, evacuation shelters play an important role for people evacuating with their animals. In fact, ‘accommodating pets helps save human lives and reduces human suffering’ (20, p.52). Hurricane Katrina which hit the USA in 2005 can be considered a sentinel event in the recognition that the refusal to accept animals into evacuation shelters or transport can result in human pain, death and suffering. This was epitomised in the footage of a small white dog called Snowball who was prised from the arms of a young boy by a police officer because companion animals were not allowed on the buses evacuating people from the New Orleans Superdome, Louisiana, to Houston, Texas. The young boy sobbed with such force that he vomited. The event was clearly physically and emotionally distressing at the time, but the impacts are likely to be far reaching, as noted below in the sections on recovery and resilience. These kinds of horrific stories instigated the development of the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards (PETS) Act passed in the USA in 2006 (29). Rising awareness also influenced the development of guidelines for government agencies and not-for-profit organisations around the globe to improve their method of management of companion animals and their guardians during natural disasters (30, 31, 32). However, policies, guidelines and Acts do not necessarily result in support and facilities at the most local of levels (33), nor do they guarantee a shared understanding of agency responsibilities (2). Even with the PETS Act in place, Americans still cite difficulties with companion animals as a reason for evacuation failure (34). Numerous people evacuated with their companion animals following the 2011 tsunami in Japan. However, ‘people with pets were refused entry to many communal shelters and some were forced to abandon their pets. People who did not give up their pets often had to survive outside the framework for emergency support’ (23, p.90). Some returned to their homes and risked structural dangers so that they could be with their animals. While discussions of animals and evacuation centres are often focused on the

immediate period following a natural disaster, there may also be instances where animals may not be allowed in longterm public housing in situations where people are unable to return to their homes, as was the case for many of those evacuated from the prefectures affected by the tsunami (23). This highlights the relevance of legislation on and planning for daily living conditions during extreme events, such as natural disasters. Many of the reasons that companion animals are unwanted in evacuation shelters are understandable: potential allergic reactions, issues of safety and hygiene and a lack of resources, for example. However, although logical as reasons, they are not acceptable as excuses because they could be addressed easily with some forethought and could be offset by the advantages of allowing – even encouraging – people to conduct well-prepared evacuations with their companion animals. Being able to evacuate with companion animals can be incredibly important in reducing the stress of facing a natural disaster. Companion animals can provide emotional and physical support in formal roles, such as trained assistance animals, but also in no less important informal roles (35). They provide humans with companionship, and feelings of safety, security, warmth and protection. Sometimes people think their animals saved their lives by alerting them to danger or creating a sense of urgency (23). Such ‘pet-effect’ (36) benefits may be even more important to vulnerable groups in society, who were found in one study of regional South Australians to have higher levels of companion animal ownership (80%) than those who did not self-identify as vulnerable (74%) (37).

Recovery Preserving the relationship between guardians and their companion animals can be ‘an essential consideration for owners’ psychological wellbeing when managing the integrated pet/owner in the face of risks posed by disaster and other hazards’ (25, p.26). Keeping animals safe is important in mitigating disaster-related stress and trauma. This fact was highlighted in a study of dog guardians affected by the 2010 earthquakes in Canterbury, New Zealand, especially where the emotional bond to the dog had previously been high (38). Surviving animals can provide a link to a past that has been physically destroyed by a natural disaster (23). Companion animal loss can impede disaster recovery and resilience. A study of companion animal owners who survived Hurricane Katrina found that ‘forced abandonment of a companion animal during an evacuation adds considerably to the acute trauma, thereby increasing the risk of long-term PTSD’ (39). Even when people are not forced to abandon their animals, they can suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other forms of

226

psychological distress (40) when their animals die or are subject to a fate unknown (41). Where guardians and their companion animals have been separated, possibly as a result of their animals not being allowed in an evacuation centre, it can take months for them to be reunited (23). As animals facilitate social interaction and reduce feelings of loneliness (42), the loss of an animal can increase the risk of social disconnection after a disaster. Animal grief is not trivial (43). Some guardians who lose a companion animal may be reluctant to express their grief as they feel less entitled to do so than those who have lost a human companion or family member (23, 44). For children, the impacts of losing a companion animal can be particularly traumatic (45, 46). With regard to farmers, animal loss can occur on a massive scale. It can take years for stock and reproduction rates to return to pre-disaster levels. The impacts are not just financial (21). Farmers may spend the days following a disaster euthanising their stock (47) and such mass culling has been proven to produce a devastating psychological impact. This was the case with the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom, following which some of the livestock owners affected committed suicide (48). Furthermore, in small-scale or relatively closed economies, the loss of livestock can lead to social issues such as food insecurity. In addition, where mass burial is impractical due to the loss of equipment, there may be environmental or public health concerns due to decomposing animal carcasses. Animal-related grief is not experienced by guardians alone; trained responders who are experienced in dealing with human emergencies may find themselves less able to cope with the animal emergencies that they are involved in or exposed to during a natural disaster (49). More broadly speaking, animals can play a positive role in raising awareness, support and charitable funds for people who need assistance when recovering from disasters, as was the case with Sam the koala after the 2009 Victorian bushfires in Australia (50).

Discussion This paper has discussed how keeping animals safe benefits humans in the planning and preparedness, response and recovery, and resilience phases of natural disasters. However, not all animal guardians are the same, not all animals are the same and not all disasters are the same. Animal guardians may vary, for example, in their attachment to their animals, their willingness to risk their lives to save


their animals, their susceptibility to the influence of cultural attitudes towards companion animals, their ideas about how well animals will cope if left in place, or their responsibilities to other humans. Such differences among animal guardians can be determined through psychographic profiling (51) or surveys of risk propensity (52). Moreover, not all the people impacted by animals around the time of a natural disaster will be companion animal or animal guardians. Emergency responders, evacuation centre personnel, law enforcement officers and local government personnel are all examples of people who are likely to be challenged to respond to the needs of animals or companion animals and their guardians during natural disasters. Road users, pedestrians and bystanders may also be impacted by animal-related incidents. It is important to note that some responders may be animal guardians themselves. While this experience may provide skills in animal handling, it may not provide the expertise necessary to safely handle stressed animals (53). Moreover, at the same time as responders need to be trained in handling animals (26), animal guardians should also ensure that their animals are easily handled by strangers – especially strangers who may be wearing personal protective equipment. The requirements for evacuating animals or making preparations for them to remain in place differ according to species (as well as disaster type, as noted below). Some animals, such as large companion animals like horses, alpacas and llamas, are more difficult to relocate (54). Some are simply too dangerous to relocate, such as animals in city or rangeland zoos. Wildlife can also impact natural disaster survival by triggering rescue behaviour or causing road accidents, for example. Moreover, some individual members of an animal species are more or less likely to be easily evacuated or to tolerate relocation. Finally, even within the same type, disasters differ, although across types the difference is more notable, especially with regard to their speed of onset and predictability (55). Fires usually have a rapid onset and are subject to changes in wind direction or the density of fire fuel that they encounter. Hurricanes, floods and cyclones may have a slower onset with a more predictable direction but they can never be fully predicted. These natural disasters may even trigger human-made disasters, as was the case with the radiation threat that was posed due to damage caused to the Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant by the tsunami in Japan in 2011. The research presented here has been biased towards people who risk their lives to save, rescue or evacuate with animals. Important insights into natural disaster behaviour and animal relations could also be afforded through research on people who do not attempt to save, rescue or evacuate with animals.

227


Conclusions This paper discusses the relationship between animals, humans and natural disasters. Many animal guardians would risk their lives to save their animals. While this altruism can put the lives of humans and animals at risk, there is ample scope to reconfigure the risk factors of companion animal guardianship and animal attachment to protective factors. However, keeping animals safe is not only a useful motivator for increasing natural disaster planning and preparedness; most animal guardians will improve their ability to cope with the immediate and longer-term stress and psychological impact of disasters if

they have their companion animal with them or know of its whereabouts. While emergency responders are mandated to save human life above all other life, the ideal aim is to keep all living beings safe from the negative impacts of natural disasters. After all, humans are animals, and for many human guardians of animals, animals are ‘people’ too.

Acknowledgements The author is grateful to Dr Bradley Smith for his support and insightful feedback on drafts of this paper.

Faire face ensemble à une catastrophe : prendre soin des animaux avant, pendant et après une catastrophe naturelle a un effet bénéfique sur les individus K. Thompson Résumé On pense que plus d’un foyer sur deux dans le monde possède au moins un animal de compagnie. Les animaux peuvent influencer la manière dont l’être humain est affecté par une catastrophe naturelle, ainsi que la manière dont il fait face à ce type d’événement et s’efforce ensuite de retrouver une vie normale. Ce constat à lui seul est une raison suffisante pour assurer la protection des animaux avant, pendant et après une catastrophe naturelle, en veillant à ce que cette démarche contribue à la sécurité des personnes et ne les mette pas en danger. L’auteure souligne que l’omission des animaux dans les plans d’urgence et dans l’attribution d’abris suite à une catastrophe a des conséquences négatives importantes. Inversement, elle insiste sur l’effet bénéfique de la prise en compte des animaux dans la réponse aux situations d’urgence, aussi bien sur la santé physique et mentale des personnes que sur leur bien-être, bénéfices qui se prolongent au-delà de la durée de la catastrophe elle-même. Ces différents effets sont examinés dans leurs grandes lignes, chez les personnes qui s’occupent d’animaux de compagnie petits ou grands, les éleveurs d’animaux de rente et les intervenants des services d’urgence, à partir d’exemples représentant divers types de catastrophes naturelles ou anthropiques. Enfin, l’auteure suggère qu’un approfondissement de la recherche sur les individus qui ne font rien pour sauver, secourir ou évacuer les animaux pourrait apporter un précieux éclairage sur le comportement humain lors des catastrophes naturelles et sur les relations hommes–animaux. Mots-clés Animal de compagnie – Animal d’élevage – Bien-être – Catastrophe naturelle – Danger – Modification du comportement – Planification – Préparation – Réponse – Sécurité.

228


Hacer frente común ante las catástrofes, o cómo el hecho de mantener a salvo a los animales beneficia a las personas antes, durante y después de una catástrofe natural K. Thompson Resumen Se piensa que más de la mitad de las viviendas del mundo albergan al menos un animal de compañía. Los animales pueden influir en el modo en que las personas se ven afectadas por una catástrofe natural, responden a ella y logran reponerse de sus efectos. Aunque solo sea por este motivo, es necesario mantener a salvo a los animales antes, durante y después de las catástrofes naturales y hacerlo de manera que contribuya a la seguridad humana, en lugar de comprometerla. La autora subraya las consecuencias negativas de no tener en cuenta a los animales en los planes para casos de catástrofe y/o de no acomodarlos en refugios. También explica que el hecho de incluir a los animales en la respuesta a las catástrofes puede traer consigo beneficios para el estado de salud física y mental y el bienestar de las personas que vayan más allá del propio episodio, refiriéndose en este sentido, en términos generales, a los custodios de animales de compañía de pequeño y gran tamaño, a los productores ganaderos y al personal de respuesta de emergencia, con ejemplos correspondientes a muy diversos peligros de origen natural o antrópico. Por último, la autora observa que las investigaciones sobre aquellas personas que se desentienden de los animales en operaciones de salvamento, rescate o evacuación podrían aportar información de gran interés sobre el comportamiento ante las catástrofes naturales y las relaciones entre humanos y animales. Palabras clave Animal de compañía – Bienestar – Cambio de comportamiento – Catástrofe natural – Ganado – Peligro – Planificación – Preparación – Respuesta – Seguridad.

References 1. Every D., Due C., Thompson K. & Ryan J. (2016). – Conflicting perspectives on nonhuman animal rescues in natural disasters. Soc. Anim., 24 (4), 358–382. doi:10.1163/1568530612341417.

5. Day A.M. (2017). – Companion animals and natural disasters: a systematic review of literature. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 24, 81–90. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.05.015.

2. Taylor M., McCarthy M., Burns P., Thompson K., Smith B. & Eustace G. (2015). – The challenges of managing animals and their owners in disasters: perspectives of Australian response organisations and stakeholders. Aust. J. Emerg. Manage., 30 (2), 31–37. Available at: https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/ items/AJEM-30-02-07 (accessed on 9 January 2018).

6. Paton D. (2003). – Disaster preparedness: a social-cognitive perspective. Disaster Prev. Manag., 12 (3), 210–216. doi:10.1108/09653560310480686.

3. Chadwin R. (2017). – Evacuation of pets during disasters: a public health intervention to increase resilience. Am. J. Public Hlth, 107 (9), 1413–1417. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2017.303877. 4. Thompson K. (2015). – For pets’ sake, save yourself! Motivating emergency and disaster preparedness through relations of animal guardianship. Aust. J. Emerg. Manage., 30 (2), 43–46. Available at: https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/ items/AJEM-30-02-09 (accessed on 9 January 2018).

7. Paton D. & Wright L. (2008). – Preparing for bushfires. The public education challenges facing fire agencies. In Community bushfire safety (J. Handmer & K. Haynes, eds). CSIRO Publishing, Clayton, Victoria, Australia, 117–126. 8. Brackenridge S., Zottarelli L.K., Rider E. & Carlsen-Landy B. (2012). – Dimensions of the human–animal bond and evacuation decisions among pet owners during Hurricane Ike. Anthrozoös, 25 (2), 229–238. doi:10.2752/17530371 2X13316289505503.


9. Thompson K. (2013). – Save me, save my dog: increasing natural disaster preparedness and survival by addressing human–animal relationships. Aust. J. Commun., 40 (1), 123– 136. Available at: https://habricentral.org/resources/43012/ download/Save_me_Save_my_dog.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2018). 10. Green R., Grant R. & Huxford C.J. (2010). – Who depends on you? Are you prepared for a disaster? Campaign analysis. Resilience Institute, Huxley College of the Environment & Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington, United States of America. Available at: www.preventionweb. net/files/16720_16720wdoypublicpreparednesswp201011. pdf (accessed on 9 January 2018). 11. Westcott R., Ronan K., Bambrick H. & Taylor M. (2017). – Expanding protection motivation theory: investigating an application to animal owners and emergency responders in bushfire emergencies. BMC Psychol., 5 (1), 13. doi:10.1186/ s40359-017-0182-3. 12. Haynes K., Handmer J., McAneney J., Tibbits A. & Coates L. (2010). – Australian bushfire fatalities 1900–2008: exploring trends in relation to the ‘prepare, stay and defend or leave early’ policy. Environ. Sci. Policy, 13 (3), 185–194. doi:10.1016/j. envsci.2010.03.002. 13. Johnson P., Johnson C. & Sutherland C. (2012). – Stay or go? Human behavior and decision making in bushfires and other emergencies. Fire Technol., 48 (1), 137–153. doi:10.1007/ s10694-011-0213-1. 14. Paton D., McClure J. & Bürgelt P.T. (2006). – Natural hazard resilience: the role of individual and household preparedness. In Disaster resilience: an integrated approach. Charles C. Thomas Publisher Ltd, Springfield, Illinois, United States of America, 105–127. 15. Thompson C.N., Brommer D.M. & Sherman-Morris K. (2015). – Pet ownership and the spatial and temporal dimensions of evacuation decisions. Southeast. Geogr., 52 (3), 253–266. doi:10.1353/sgo.2012.0025. 16. Blendon R.J., Benson J.M., DesRoches C.M., Lyon-Daniel K., Mitchell E.W. & Pollard W.E. (2007). – The public’s preparedness for hurricanes in four affected regions. Public Hlth Rep., 122 (2), 167–176. doi:10.1177/003335490712200206. 17. Heath S.E., Kass P.H., Beck A.M. & Glickman L.T. (2001). – Human and pet-related risk factors for household evacuation failure during a natural disaster. Am. J. Epidemiol., 153 (7), 659–665. doi:10.1093/aje/153.7.659. 18. Heath S.E., Voeks S.K. & Glickman L.T. (2001). – Epidemiologic features of pet evacuation failure in a rapidonset disaster. JAVMA, 218 (12), 1898–1904. doi:10.2460/ javma.2001.218.1898. 19. Mei E.T.W., Lavigne F., Picquout A., De Bélizal E., Brunstein D., Grancher D., Sartohadi J., Cholik N. & Vidal C. (2013). – Lessons learned from the 2010 evacuations at Merapi volcano. J. Vol. Geotherm. Res., 261, 348–365. doi:10.1016/j. jvolgeores.2013.03.010.

229

20. Irvine L. (2009). – Filling the ark: animal welfare in disasters. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America, 176 pp. 21. Smith B., Taylor M. & Thompson K. (2015). – Risk perception, preparedness and response of livestock producers to bushfires: a South Australian case study. Aust. J. Emerg. Manage., 30 (2), 38–42. Available at: https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/ items/AJEM-30-02-08 (accessed on 9 January 2018). 22. Cain A.O. (1985). – Pets as family members. Marriage Fam. Rev., 8 (3–4), 5–10. doi:10.1300/J002v08n03_02. 23. Kajiwara H. (2016). – Human–animal interaction in posttsunami Japan. Humanimalia, 7 (2), 84–108. Available at: www.depauw.edu/humanimalia/issue%2014/kajiwara.html (accessed on 9 January 2018). 24. Belk R.W. (1988). – Possessions and the extended self. J. Consum. Res., 15 (2), 139–168. doi:10.1086/209154. 25. Trigg J., Thompson K., Smith B. & Bennett P. (2016). – An animal just like me: the importance of preserving the identities of companion-animal owners in disaster contexts. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass, 10 (1), 26–40. doi:10.1111/ spc3.12233. 26. Irvine L. (2006). – Animals in disasters: issues for animal liberation activism and policy. Anim. Lib. Philos. Policy J., 4 (1), 1–16. Available at: www.researchgate.net/ publication/228373924_Animals_in_Disasters_Issues_ for_Animal_Liberation_Activism_and_Policy (accessed on 9 January 2018). 27. Anon. (2015). – ITV report: tragedy as devastating bushfires hit South Australia kennels, killing dozens of cats and dogs. Available at: www.itv.com/news/2015-01-04/tragedy-asdevastating-bushfires-hit-south-australia-kennels-killingdozens-of-cats-and-dogs/ (accessed on 4 August 2017). 28. Davidson J.E., Sekayan A., Agan D., Good L., Shaw D. & Smilde R. (2009). – Disaster dilemma: factors affecting decision to come to work during a natural disaster. Adv. Emerg. Nurs. J., 31 (3), 248–257. doi:10.1097/TME.0b013e3181af686d. 29. Leonard H.A. & Scammon D.L. (2007). – No pet left behind: accommodating pets in emergency planning. J. Public Pol. Market., 26 (1), 49–53. doi:10.1509/jppm.26.1.49. 30. Irvine L. (2007). – Animals in disasters: responsibility and action. Policy paper. Animals and Society Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America. 31. Glassey S. (2010). – Recommendations to enhance companion animal emergency management in New Zealand. Mercalli Disaster Management Consulting, Wellington, New Zealand. Available at: www.ucr3.canterbury.ac.nz/docs/ Recommendations-enhance_companion_animal_EM-NZ.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2017). 32. National Advisory Committee for Animals in Emergencies. (2013). – National planning principles for animals in disasters. National Advisory Committee for Animals in Emergencies, Australia. Available at: www.ava.com.au/sites/ default/files/AVA_website/FINAL%20National%20Planning %20Principles%20for%20Animals%20in%20Disasters.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2018).

230


33. Farmer A.K., DeYoung S.E. & Wachtendorf T. (2017). – Pets and evacuation: an ongoing challenge in disasters. J. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag., 13 (4). doi:10.1515/jhsem-2016-0051.

44. Potts A. & Gadenne D. (2014). – Animals in emergencies: learning from the Christchurch earthquakes. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch, New Zealand, 256 pp.

34. Hunt M.G., Bogue K. & Rohrbaugh N. (2012). – Pet ownership and evacuation prior to Hurricane Irene. Animals, 2 (4), 529–539. Available at: www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/2/4/529 (accessed on 10 January 2018).

45. Kaufman K.R. & Kaufman N.D. (2006). – And then the dog died. Death Stud., 30 (1), 61–76. doi:10.1080/ 07481180500348811.

35. Thompson K., Every D., Rainbird S., Cornell V., Smith B. & Trigg J. (2014). – No pet or their person left behind: increasing the disaster resilience of vulnerable groups through animal attachment, activities and networks. Animals, 4 (2), 214–240. Available at: www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/4/2/214 (accessed on 10 January 2018). 36. Smith B.P. (2012). – The ‘pet effect’: health related aspects of companion animal ownership. Aust. Fam. Physician, 41 (6), 439–442. Available at: www.researchgate.net/ publication/225276820_The_%27pet_effect%27_Health_ related_aspects_of_companion_animal_ownership (accessed on 10 January 2018). 37. Thompson K., Trigg J. & Smith B. (2017). – Animal ownership among vulnerable populations in regional South Australia: implications for natural disaster preparedness and resilience. J. Public Hlth Manag. Pract., 23 (1), 59–63. doi:10.1097/ PHH.0000000000000416. 38. Coombs S., Eberlein A., Mantata K., Turnhout A. & Smith C.M. (2015). – Did dog ownership influence perceptions of adult health and wellbeing during and following the Canterbury earthquakes? A qualitative study. Australas. J. Disaster Trauma Stud., 19 (2), 67–75. Available at: http://trauma. massey.ac.nz/issues/2015-2/AJDTS_19_2_Coombes.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2018). 39. Hunt M., Al-Awadi H. & Johnson M. (2008). – Psychological sequelae of pet loss following Hurricane Katrina. Anthrozoös, 21 (2), 109–121: 109. doi:10.2752/175303708X30576. 40. Lowe S.R., Rhodes J.E., Zwiebach L. & Chan C.S. (2009). – The impact of pet loss on the perceived social support and psychological distress of hurricane survivors. J. Trauma. Stress, 22 (3), 244–247. doi:10.1002/jts.20403. 41. Goto T., Wilson J.P., Kahana B. & Slane S. (2006). – The Miyake Island volcano disaster in Japan: loss, uncertainty, and relocation as predictors of PTSD and depression. J. App. Soc. Psychol., 36 (8), 2001–2026. doi:10.1111/j.00219029.2006.00091.x. 42. Veevers J.E. (1985). – The social meaning of pets: alternative roles for companion animals. Marriage Fam. Rev., 8 (3–4), 11–30. doi:10.1300/J002v08n03_03. 43. Chur-Hansen A. (2010). – Grief and bereavement issues and the loss of a companion animal: people living with a companion animal, owners of livestock, and animal support workers. Clin. Psychol., 14 (1), 14–21. doi:10.1080/13284201003662800.

46. Planchon L.A. & Templer D.I. (1996). – The correlates of grief after death of pet. Anthrozoös, 9 (2–3), 107–113. doi:10.2752/089279396787001491. 47. Rogers J., Trent S. & Gillen A. (2015). – Dealing with livestock affected by the 2014 bushfires in South Australia: decisionmaking and recovery. Aust. J. Emerg. Manage., 30 (2), 13–17. Available at: https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/items/AJEM-3002-04 (accessed on 10 January 2018). 48. Hall M.J., Ng A., Ursano R.J., Holloway H., Fullerton C. & Casper J. (2004). – Psychological impact of the animal–human bond in disaster preparedness and response. J. Psychiatr. Pract., 10 (6), 368–374. doi:10.1097/00131746-200411000-00005. 49. Thompson K., Leighton M. & Riley C. (2015). – Helping hands, hurting hooves: towards a multidisciplinary paradigm of large animal rescue. Aust. J. Emerg. Manage., 30 (2), 53–58. Available at: https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/items/AJEM-3002-12 (accessed on 10 January 2018). 50. Due C., Thompson K. & Every D. (2014). – ‘An image of hope in a week of despair’: representations of Sam the koala in the Australian mainstream news media. Media Int. Aust., 151 (1), 47–55. doi:10.1177/1329878X1415100107. 51. Trigg J., Thompson K., Smith B. & Bennett P. (2015). – Engaging pet owners in disaster risk and preparedness communications: simplifying complex human–animal relations with archetypes. Environ. Hazards, 14 (3), 236–251. doi:10.1080/17477891.20 15.1047731. 52. Trigg J., Smith B., Bennett P. & Thompson K. (2016). – Developing a scale to understand willingness to sacrifice personal safety for companion animals: the pet-owner risk propensity scale (PORPS). Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 21, 205–212. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.12.004. 53. Smith B., Thompson K. & Taylor M. (2015). – What’s the big deal? Responder experiences of large animal rescue in Australia. PLoS Curr., 7. doi:10.1371/currents. dis.71d34082943fa239dbfbf9597232c8a5. 54. Thompson K.R., Haigh L. & Smith B.P. (2018). – Planned and ultimate actions of horse owners facing a bushfire threat: implications for natural disaster preparedness and survivability. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 27, 490–498. doi:1016/j.ijdrr.2017.11.013. 55. Baum A., Fleming R. & Davidson L.M. (1983). – Natural disaster and technological catastrophe. Environ. Behav., 15 (3), 333–354. doi:10.1177/0013916583153004.